real Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 2 Thoughts:- 1. Slattocks industrial estate. 2. OMBC lose rates income from Latics (? or does it go to central govt?), lose face in failing to support a football club in the borough. The first is probably the only place that latics fans would accept a groundshare with 'dale, and might be acceptable to them. The second is perhaps a bit of leverage being put on OMBC to find/release a suitable site. For me, the only sense in moving ground is to attract fans from a neighbouring area, a ground share defeats this idea. Tameside or Middleton borders are probably the best options imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I'm glad SC has said what he has about sacking Ronnie. Doing so for the reasons they did was a mistake, and a very expensive lesson in exactly how much the board should listen to fan power. I was no great fan of Ronnie's style, but he deserved another season. He doesn't rank the lows, but I suspect the lowest point of all was sacking Shez. As SC says it had to be done, but having tried so many management options and knowing they had to pick someone, stand by them and give them as much time as they could, it must have felt particularly hard to see nearly 3 years ultimately go to waste. 100% spot on!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 He's right on a lot of things. Don't necessarily like the way he pitches it, but the content is often very relevant (if slightly repetitive). Look at it this way-did Churchill outline the threat posed to Britain by the Third Reich only once? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Look at it this way-did Churchill outline the threat posed to Britain by the Third Reich only once? No. And David Icke is slowly but surely raising awareness of the 12 foot space lizards in spite of the nay-sayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Look at it this way-did Churchill outline the threat posed to Britain by the Third Reich only once? There was a sustained threat that needed to be stressed to the public. I'm also aware of some stressing the issue of a sustained threat from Mars not too long ago as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 There was a sustained threat that needed to be stressed to the public. I'm also aware of some stressing the issue of a sustained threat from Mars not too long ago as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 No. And David Icke is slowly but surely raising awareness of the 12 foot space lizards in spite of the nay-sayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oafc88 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Cant say i like the idea of a groundshare, would only begrudgingly accept it as a last chance option, and im not too keen on moving the club to a nearby borough. Okay it could be good financially but what if it doesnt work out and we've already sold BP, how long til we become another wimbledon (an extreme example maybe) at first groundsharing then losing our identity all together. I know we should have the best interests of the club at heart and to see it survive could mean such a move yet i feel we would lose the whole point of being called oldham athletic, if we cant even play in our own town!! what potenital future fans from within oldham that dont already know a latics fan (a dad/mum/brother/sisiter/uncle etc.) get involved with latics if we were based somewhere else! i apologise if this all seems doom an gloom and its most likely an overreaction, just the thought of groundsharing somewhere else depresses me At the end of the day, id still follow the club regardless of where we moved to, ive followed them too long and invetsed so much time to just stop following, as im sure most others on here have and would also continue to support the club. I suppose its all speculation at the moment and hopefully this is a veiled threat from the tta to stir some intrest from those within the town (surprised its been released in the MEN first though, why not the chron??) and their original plan to redevelop BP is still on course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Look at it this way-did Churchill outline the threat posed to Britain by the Third Reich only once? There's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq I tell ya. I reckon within 3 years Saddam Hussain will have missile capability to hit Europe, possibly Britain. Who's with me to attack the place? Even if you don't believe Blair after he's told ya 100,000 times, you've gotta believe Colin Powell Edited July 6, 2009 by Lags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) I'm not an OMBC basher. I don't believe they purposefully hold back the town and it's sporting clubs, whether through mal-practice or even spite, as some seem to suggest... BUT I don't think I'll ever forgive the Lib-Dems who got voted in around '98 and scuppered the Sports Park 2000 stadium plan. The local NIMBYs shot themselves in the foot on that one too - the plans, IIRC, essentially moved the playing fields nearer to the residential areas and the stadium was proposed to be sited further away than where BP is now... I fear a stadium outside of the Borough could well be a disaster, but if there aren't any suitable sites available what else can the club do if they no longer find it viable to redevelop BP. A ground-share - IF it meant us playing out of the Borough - would not be good. Edited July 6, 2009 by Yard Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 When the TTA bought the ground, how long was it to be kept as sports related? Was it 10 years. Have we about 8 years to go? Is that related to the timescales SC gives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Firm commitment has been made-or did I imagine that a bit of BP has already been demolished? In any case, you've got to commit to something sometime if anything's going to be done at all. How long is it now since Sports Park 2000 was first mooted? How long since clubs started upgrading their facilities? Every week that passes we fall further and further behind. A section of the stadium has been demolish to save costs? That isnt a commitment. There are a lot of football clubs that cannot afford to upgrade their facilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 BUT I don't think I'll ever forgive the Lib-Dems who got voted in around '98 and scuppered the Sports Park 2000 stadium plan. Another common myth used to bash the Lib Dems. The only true bit is that Sportspark 2000 was finally killed off during the Lib Dems' tenure. But it would have happened whoever was running the council at the time. The plans broke a covenant for the use of Clayton Playing Fields and would never have survived a legal challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Another common myth used to bash the Lib Dems. The only true bit is that Sportspark 2000 was finally killed off during the Lib Dems' tenure. But it would have happened whoever was running the council at the time. The plans broke a covenant for the use of Clayton Playing Fields and would never have survived a legal challenge. The Lib Dems campaigned on a "Save Clayton Playing Fields" platform and scuppered the idea as soon as they got in. I got a leaflet through my door celebrating how they "saved" Clayton Playing Fields from Sportspark 2000. Never voted for them since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 And by doing so probably won more votes than they lost. The truth is, Sportspark 2000 would never have got off the ground with or without the Lib Dems' help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 The Lib Dems campaigned on a "Save Clayton Playing Fields" platform and scuppered the idea as soon as they got in. I got a leaflet through my door celebrating how they "saved" Clayton Playing Fields from Sportspark 2000. Never voted for them since. The Lib Dems take the credit for anything that happens if they feel they can get votes out of it. At a local level they are definitely the mosty cynical of the parties in the way they campaign, putting red leaflets through letter boxes (trying to look Labour and slagging off Labour) in Labour wards, and blue ones in the Tory ones. Their exciting photographs of their candidate staring at a hole in the pavement claiming that 17 grannies fell down last week (never to be seen again) make me puke!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Having been involved in a few campaigns, I can safely say the three main parties are all as bad as each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Another common myth used to bash the Lib Dems. The only true bit is that Sportspark 2000 was finally killed off during the Lib Dems' tenure. But it would have happened whoever was running the council at the time. The plans broke a covenant for the use of Clayton Playing Fields and would never have survived a legal challenge. You are a Lib Dem member or supporter or relative of one IIRC, aren't you ? How is it a myth ? They openly campaigned against Sports Park 2000. And I don't think the legal challenge would have been as clear-cut as you make out....however, since Clayton got Town Green status there is no chance of anything ever being developed on it. What got my goat was that the playing fields, although planned to move to where BP is now, where actually going to be enlarged and improved - and more than likely create a buffer zone between the stadium and most of the residential properties....now we are left with a landlocked stadium in a less than satisfactory postion (too close to houses really). Edited July 6, 2009 by Yard Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I am yes, so forgive me for defending the corner. (Not particularly active these days - the party politics and desperate vote chasing gets a bit boring after a while). The myth part is (IMO) the entirety of the blame being attached to the Lib Dems, when in truth - as I said - it was doomed anyway. I was far from convinced about the project myself, but I agree one positive was that the public playing field facilities would actually have been improved. Of course, when making covenants decades earlier people don't always consider those kind of practicalities. These days, looking at the development all around it, you've got to admit the town green status is a bonus - can you imagine the chaos around Broadway roundabout if there'd been retail development on Clayton too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I am yes, so forgive me for defending the corner. (Not particularly active these days - the party politics and desperate vote chasing gets a bit boring after a while). The myth part is (IMO) the entirety of the blame being attached to the Lib Dems, when in truth - as I said - it was doomed anyway. I was far from convinced about the project myself, but I agree one positive was that the public playing field facilities would actually have been improved. Of course, when making covenants decades earlier people don't always consider those kind of practicalities. These days, looking at the development all around it, you've got to admit the town green status is a bonus - can you imagine the chaos around Broadway roundabout if there'd been retail development on Clayton too? Yes, the greenery of Clayton actually gives a fair impression of the Borough as you exit the A627M, much better than if exit the M60 and are coming up Manchester Road. But the playing fields are not fit for purpose. And I'd much rather Latics have a jock-off stadium there You would hope that if they did allow sports park 2000 to go ahead back then they would at the same time improve the surrounding roads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Oh, and while we're on the party political agenda it is worth remembering which local councillors (Labour) stoked up and helped organise the NIMBY's against the ground development - and spoke against it at Planning Committee - and which (Lib Dem) rode a fine line between appreciating the concerns of local residents and the ambitions of the club, and helped bring the two together. (Yes, before someone mentions it, LD councillors were amongst those who voted against the planning application, and I had some interesting email exchanges with them at the time!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 But the playing fields are not fit for purpose. Too true, and it seems any attempt - by Latics or anyone else - to improve them always seems to fall at the first hurdle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 A section of the stadium has been demolish to save costs? That isnt a commitment. There are a lot of football clubs that cannot afford to upgrade their facilities. Maybe it was to save costs, but the demolition was part of the overall redevelopment plan. So what that plenty of clubs can't afford to upgrade? The ones that tend to thrive have done so, some of them years ago, and benefit from this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJazzer Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 (anyone remember what Selnec stands for ?) Stop Expectations. Latics Never Elevate to Championship or maybe im way off the mark, maybe its, Stop Exasperation. Latics Naturally Elevate to Championship or Stupid Eejit Loves Nemonics Especially Crap-ones...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I'm not an OMBC basher. I don't believe they purposefully hold back the town and it's sporting clubs, whether through mal-practice or even spite, as some seem to suggest... BUT I don't think I'll ever forgive the Lib-Dems who got voted in around '98 and scuppered the Sports Park 2000 stadium plan. The local NIMBYs shot themselves in the foot on that one too - the plans, IIRC, essentially moved the playing fields nearer to the residential areas and the stadium was proposed to be sited further away than where BP is now... I fear a stadium outside of the Borough could well be a disaster, but if there aren't any suitable sites available what else can the club do if they no longer find it viable to redevelop BP. A ground-share - IF it meant us playing out of the Borough - would not be good. Ahh, if only SP2000 had gone ahead, we'd have been playing in a nice spanking new stgadium for 8 or 9 years now, would probably have had substantially increased revenue and would likely be plying our trade in the Championship by now. Instead we are looking forward to a 13th (?) season in this crappy league in a 3 sided ground, 2 thirds of which is looking more and more ramshackle with every passing day. What's more is that Clayton would have actually been being properly utilised with modern up to date facilities. Thanks OMBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.